fayfreethinkers.com

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Students who took part in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not, according to a study ordered by Congress.

Also, those who attended one of the four abstinence classes that were reviewed reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as those who did not attend the classes. And they first had sex at about the same age as other students -- 14.9 years, according to Mathematica Policy Research Inc.

The federal government now spends about $176 million annually on abstinence-until-marriage education. Critics have repeatedly said they don't believe the programs are working, and the study will give them reinforcement.

Read the rest here.

That's like the DARE program, which the government's own GOA has declared totally ineffective. But just because a govt program is ineffective and expensive is no reason for political decision-makers to abandon it! Certain constituents like it, and it expands political bureaucrats' budgets and power - which is what counts.

Actually, I think the ineffectiveness of the abstinence program (and DARE) is underplayed. One would expect perverse (counter-productive) results for abstinence training, such as higher pregnancy and STD rates. I looked in vain for pregnancy and STV results in the article. (It does mention that "we find no evidence that the programs increased the rate of unprotected sex," but one suspects that they didn't look very closely. Did they rely on interviews or pregancy/STD rates? If the latter, then why didn't they say so?)

I find it interesting how we keep trying to artificially postpone when teenagers become sexually active. Pretty much any species wants to use it when they got it (i.e. have sex when theyre physically able to procreate), and historically, the "line" of how young is too young has been somewhere in the range of 12 to 14 years old. Now, its been pushed back to 16, sometimes 18, and rightwing nuts are wanting to basically make it to where teenagers never have sex...

YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!

DAR
My couple day old baby goats are already mounting each other. But they are just playing. I think female goats can get pregnant at about four+ months but it is best to let them get older. Belle goat, who just gave birth a week ago Wednesday, was born February '06 and got pregnant about December '06. She had two healthy billy goats that were a big hit at the Springfest booth.

D.

Isnt that pretty muc hthe same thing thoug? How many teenagers are just playing around? There arent many at that age that actually want to get pregnant. It happens, and its accidental, but its definitely not the purpose at that age.

So I let some digressions slide because they're just tangential enough, and we end up with a slow meander away from the topic.

Let's steer this back in the direction of abstinence-only education programs.

The discussion of cultural effects on sexual maturation has been moved to here.

--Savonarola, Politics moderator

Funding for abstinence likely to drop

By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer Wed May 16

WASHINGTON - Federal funding for abstinence education will likely fall considerably this year as Democratic leaders said Wednesday they will let a $50 million grant program expire on June 30.

The program, known as Title V, has not proven to be effective, said Rep. John Dingell (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Dingell's committee has jurisdiction over Title V funding. With a budget deficit and a war, he said the decision to eliminate funding was not a difficult one.

"Abstinence-only seems to be a colossal failure," Dingell said.

To back that viewpoint, he cited a recent report to Congress that showed students in four abstinence-until-marriage programs were just as likely to have sex as those who were not in the abstinence programs. They also had sex at about the same age as students who did not take part in the four programs — 14.9 years, according to Mathematica Policy Research Inc.

...

Dingell credited Rep. Diana DeGette (news, bio, voting record), D-Col., for her counsel on the need to do away with the grant program. Both lawmakers said they would prefer that the money be used for comprehensive sex ed programs that would include abstinence as part of the curriculum.

"With all we know about how to prevent teen pregnancy and reduce sexually transmitted diseases, it is high time to redirect the millions of federal dollars that we squander every year on abstinence-only education to programs that actually work," DeGette said.

LINK

Seems Congress has decided it's mythbusting time.
If youngsters can be given factual information in a decent
way they sometimes pull a correct choice out of the hat.
It's difficult to legislate against the onslaught of teen
harmone rush.

The Growing Failure of Abstinence Education

Last month's resignation of Wade Horn, former assistant secretary at
the US Department of Health and Human Services and point man for
conservative social policy, came just as support was crumbling and mistrust
mounting for a costly and, many would argue, unsuccessful initiative -
abstinence education.

LINK

How much you bet it won't make any difference in the funding (as requested by the president) or the GOP rhetoric about ab-ed?

More Funding for Abstinence-Only Sex Education

By ELAINE FRIEDMAN
HumanistNetworkNews.org
June 6, 2007

The Bush Administration remains firm in its belief in abstinence-only sex education. It showed its support last week by providing a grant to promote abstinence online.

This action comes despite a major nonpartisan study that showed that abstinence-only sex education does little, if anything, to decrease the rate of adolescent sexual activity, and the Brazilian government's announcement that it will begin subsidizing birth control pills. Brazil already distributes free condoms and birth control pills at government-run pharmacies.

The Administration on Children and Families and Youth Services Bureau, program offices of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, recently announced a grant to the Medical Institute for Sexual Health to develop online abstinence training programs. This $207,400 grant qualifies as technical assistance that integrates "medical and scientific information into abstinence education programming."

According to its website, the Medical Institute for Sexual Health (MI) bases its policies on sound science: "We identify and evaluate scientific information on sexual health and promote healthy sexual decisions and behaviors by communicating credible scientific information."

However, the MI's focus on abstinence leads it to promote shaky, if not truly unscientific, ideas. The MI emphasizes the failure rate of contraception and opposes mandating the HPV vaccine. The MI received a Congressional earmark to teach abstinence-only sex education to medical students. This project was lead by David Hager, a Bush appointee who opposed over-the-counter status for Plan B, will not prescribe contraception for unmarried women and treats pre-menstrual syndrome with prayer.

It appears that Democrats will not take action to eliminate the abstinence-only earmark but will instead wait for it to expire.

LINK

Congressman John Boozman (Wingnut, Ark) calls for continued funding of Abstinence Only Education. Again, Booz plays to his base of theocrats, fundamentalists, and snake handlers.

" Don’t Touch Abstinence Education (Rep. John Boozman)
June 6th, 2007

Unless there is a shift in fortunes, it is likely that federally mandated money for abstinence education will be eliminated at the end of June. Currently, the government is required to grant $50 million per year for abstinence education, thanks to the overhaul in welfare passed by Republicans in 1996. The grant program was set to expire last year, but was granted a six-month extension in the last Congress.

It was reported in May that House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) plans to quietly let abstinence education die at the end of June. The same article hints at the elimination of $110 million in discretionary spending for abstinence programs. A spokesperson for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was quoted in the report as saying she will defer to Chairman Dingell on the elimination of abstinence education.

Recently, I added my name to a letter to Chairman Dingell calling for the money to be reauthorized. The reason why is simple: America’s parents want abstinence education for their children.

In early May, a national poll showed nearly 80% of America’s parents think abstinence should be taught over contraception in sex education classes. Additionally, 83% of those parents think their children should wait to have sex until marriage."
http://blog.thehill.com/2007/06/06/dont ... n-boozman/

Boozman's source? Lies, of course:
"A little more research turns up interesting info. The Zogby "poll" that Boozman cites isn't really a valid public opinion poll, but message-testing research from foes of sex education and apparently created by the folks who brought us the Swift Boat ads. The questions are shaped to produce desired results and thus reveal the best tactics for achieving those results. Respondents are not ever asked whether they support ONLY abstinence-only education. They are offered some emotional hot-button situations. This is a fair political strategy, to test messages. But the results shouldn't be misrepresented by Boozman -- and the other right-wingers currently parroting them -- as scientific public opinion research."
http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasb ... .aspx#more

National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) Polls Debunked

"RH Reality Check has been watching with interest as the newly formed National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA):

* recruits and instructs members how to use your tax dollars to promote its narrow mono-theological political agenda;
* assembles a board of directors with questionable ethics;
* hires hit men to prepare a media blitz to acquire more taxpayer dollars for failed ab-only programs.

The latest step in NAEA's fledgling efforts to preserve the Bush billion dollar abstinence-only boondoggle, is a poll conducted by NAEA to test messaging for their upcoming media blitz.

Most people only hear the top-line data from polls, the "support for abstinence programs shifts from 40 to 60 percent" sort of information that Valerie Huber at NAEA is pushing. Without critical analysis, that data gets repeated and sometimes people who know better, believe it, like Skip Brown, the spokesperson for Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA). He said, “By killing this [ab-only funding], Democrats are going against the wishes of most parents.” What was a shift in a poll suddenly became the will of the American parent. Not so fast Skippy.

Today RH Reality Check is going to debunk the recent NAEA poll, in substance and in form, and help Valerie Huber at NAEA and Rep. Pitts' staff understand why their statements simply are not true. "

read the rest http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007 ... nking-naea

DAR
Wow, good info. I am taping a CATV show in a couple weeks on the absurd failure of abstinence only ed. and I will use this.

D.

Glad you can use it Dar.

Hopefully some of the viewers of this site will need the debunking material to rebutt wingnuts who write letters to editor using those phony "polls."